Download evaluation of pigeonpea integrated pest

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Agric. Sci. Digest, 26 (1) : 57 - 59, 2006
EVALUATION OF PIGEONPEA INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT MODULE IN RAINFED ECOSYSTEM
G. Gajendran, M. Chandrasekaran, N. Ganapathy and S. Jebaraj
All India Co-ordinated Research Project on Pigeonpea,
National Pulses Research Centre, Vamban Colony, Pudukkottai - 622 303, Tamil Nadu, India
ABSTRACT
Experiments on evaluation of Pigeonpea Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Module in
comparison with the farmers’ practice were conducted with the variety Vamban 1 for three years
from 2000 - 2002. Adoption of IPM module consisting of the components viz., early sowing (June
3rd week), setting up of pheromone traps against Helicoverpa armigera @ 12/ha, installing bird
perches @ 50/ha using “T” shaped poles, mechanical collection and disposal of pod borer larvae
and infested parts, use of bio-rational pesticides viz., Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE) 5% at 50%
flowering, spraying of Ha NPV @ 500LE/ha at early pod set and need based spraying of insecticides
viz., dichlorvos 0.08% against flower webber, Maruca vitrata Geyer at flowering and chlorpyriphos
0.05% at podding against pod borer complex registered reduced pod borer (14.6 - 26.6%), pod
wasp (1.8 - 3.0%) and pod fly (2.4 - 4.0%) damage as against the farmers’ practice viz., late sowing
(July 3rd week), dusting with lindane 1.3 D @ 25 kg/ha at flowering and podding, which registered
higher pod borer (24.3 - 38.6%), pod wasp (3.5 - 7.0%) and pod fly (6.00%) damage. The grain
yield (362 - 530 kg/ha) and benefit cost ratio (1.73 - 1.91) were also higher in IPM plots compared
to farmers’ practice (239 - 410 kg/ha and 1.24 - 1.38 respectively).
Pigeonpea is one of the major pulse
crops grown in India accounting for 44 per
cent of the total area under pulses and about
60 per cent of the total pulse production (Reddy
et al., 2001). Insect pest damage constitutes a
serious limiting factor in pulse production.
More than 200 insect species have been
reported feeding on pigeonpea at various
stages of its growth (Lateef and Reed, 1990).
Among these, several species of pod borers
constitute the major pests of this crop and
cause an yield loss of 28 per cent (Rangaiah
and Sehgal, 1984). Pesticides are undoubtedly
effective for averting pest attacks (Sharma and
Patel, 1994), but the widespread and
indiscriminate use of pesticides lead to
resistance of pod borers to pesticides, increase
in the cost of plant protection and also
poisoning each and every component of the
biosphere. Considering the hazardous nature
of insecticides and benefit cost ratio, it is
imperative to integrate various alternative
strategies for the management of pigeonpea
pod borers. Keeping this in view, the present
study was undertaken to evaluate the
pigeonpea IPM module in comparison with the
farmers’ practice in rainfed ecosystem.
The experiments on IPM module
evaluation were conducted under the ICARAll India Co-ordinated Research Project
(AICRP) on Pigeonpea at National Pulses
Research Centre(NPRC), Vamban, Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University and at farmers’ holding
in Pudukkottai District, Tamil Nadu under
rainfed conditions with the following
treatments.
Treatment I : IPM Module
• Early sowing (June 3rd week)
• Setting up of pheromone traps against
Helicoverpa armigera @ 12/ha.
• Installing bird perches @ 50/ha using “T”
shaped poles
• Mechanical collection and disposal of pod
borer larvae and infested parts
• Use of bio-rational pesticides viz., Neem
Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE) 5% at 50%
flowering
• Spraying of Ha NPV @ 500LE/ha at early
pod set
• Need based spraying of insecticides viz.,
58
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE DIGEST
dichlorvos 0.08% against flower webber, complex, the incidence of H. armigera was
Maruca vitrata at flowering and chlorpyriphos maximum in the experimental plots and the
0.05% at podding against pod borers complex. mean H. armigera damage was 5.8 and 11.2
per cent in IPM and farmers’ practice
Treatment II : Farmers’ Practice
respectively. The pod wasp and pod fly damage
rd
• Late sowing (July 3 week)
• Dusting with Lindane 1.3 D @ 25 kg/ha was 1.8 and 2.3 per cent in IPM as against
3.5 and 6.10 in farmers’ practice,
at flowering and podding.
respectively. The grain yield and benefit cost
The experiments were conducted at ratio was maximum in IPM plot (362 kg/ha;
NPRC, Vamban (On-Station) and in farmers’ 1.91) as against farmers’ practice (239 kg/
holding (On-Farm) at Venkitakulam, ha; 1.38). The results of On - Farm trials also
Pudukkottai District, Tamil Nadu. The trials showed a similar trend and the damage by pod
were carried out with the variety Vamban 1 in borer complex was low in IPM plots which
an larger area of 0.2 ha for each treatment recorded 26.6 per cent as against 38.6 per
and unreplicated. In IPM plot the botanical/ cent in farmers’ practice plot. The maximum
biocontrol/insecticidal treatments were grain yield (530 kg/ha) and benefit cost ratio
imposed based on need by regular monitoring (1.73) were recorded in IPM plot compared to
of the pod borer damage.
410 kg/ha and 1.24 in farmers’ practice. The
Observations on pod damage by results on the effectiveness of the IPM module
lepidopteran borers viz., gram pod borer are in agreement with the findings of Patel
(Helicoverpa armigera Hb.), flower webber et al. (2002). The wothiness of IPM module
(Maruca vitrata Geyer), blue butterfly (Lampides could be attributed to the cumulative effect of
boeticus L.) and plume moth (Exelastis all the IPM components. Borkar et al. (1996)
atomosa Wlsn.) were assessed from the pods reported that NSKE 5.0 per cent was effective
collected from 10 randomly selected plants in against the pod fly (M. obtusa). According to
each of the five microplots (20 m2 ) within a Srinivasa Rao and Dharma Reddy (2003) the
treatmental plot. Seed damage by pod fly application of NSKE improved the efficacy of
(Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch) and pod wasp IPM module treatment as it could control the
(Tanaostigmodes cajaninae Lasalle) was also late coming borers i.e., pod fly, M. obtusa
assessed from the above pods. Grain yield and plume moth, E. atomosa. In the present
and the Benefit Cost ratio (B/C) were worked study also the seed damage by pod fly was less
out at harvest.
in the IPM plot than the farmers’ practice plot.
The results of On-Station evaluation The grain yield and benefit cost ratio (B/C),
of IPM module experiment during kharif, were minimum in farmers’ practice plots owing
2000-02 revealed that the damage caused by to application of the insecticide lindane1.3 D
pod borer complex was low (14.6 %) in the twice without consideration of the pest load.
IPM plot compared to 24.3 per cent damage This finding is clearly supported by Sarod
in the farmers’ practice. Among the borer et al. (1997) and Bhagwat (1997).
Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006
Table 1. Comparitive evaluation of pigeonpea
S.No.
Details
2.
3.
4.
Pod damage (%) by
Maruca vitrata
Helicoverpa armigera
Lampiedes boeticus
Exelastis atomosa
Cumulative pod borer (%) damage
Pod wasp damage (%)
Pod fly seed damage (%)
Grain yield (kg/ha)
Benefit : Cost
IPM module vs Farmers’ practice
On - Station trial kharif 2000-02*
IPM
1.
59
Farmers’ practice
5.3
5.8
2.0
1.6
14.6
1.8
2.4
362
1.91
7.2
11.2
2.8
2.8
24.3
3.5
6.1
239
1.38
On - Farm trial kharif -2002
IPM
12.0
8.0
4.0
2.0
26.6
3.0
4.0
530
1.73
Farmers’ practice
15.0
12.0
7.0
5.0
38.6
7.0
6.0
410
1.24
* Mean value of three years.
REFERENCES
Bhagwat, V.R. (1997). SAT News, 20: 6-8.
Borkar, S.L. et al. (1996). J. Soils Crop, 6: 146-150.
Lateef, S.S. and Reed, W. (1990). In: Insect Pests of Tropical Legumes (Singh, S.R. Ed.). John Wiley, U.K.
Patel, M.G. et al. (2002). Indian J. Ent., 64: 39-43.
Rangaiah, P.H. and Sehgal, V.K. (1984). Indian J. Pl. Prot., 12: 127-30.
Reddy, C.N. et al. (2001). Indian J. Ent., 63: 215-220.
Sarode, S.V. et al. (1997). PKV Res. J., 21: 227-229.
Sharma, U.D. and Patel, R.K. (1994). J. Appl. Zool. Res., 5(1): 46-47.
Srinivasa Rao, M. and Dharma Reddy, K. (2003). Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci., 11(1): 26-30.